I’ve been thinking a lot about the gap between feeling strongly about something, and actually doing something about it.

This is partly born out of recent personal experiences, but also thinking about the way people behave online.

At home I’ve been thinking a lot about Parkinson’s disease and road safety (separately, for different reasons!), and yet I haven’t found the time to contribute anything to either of these causes yet, despite the fact that I have found time to jot down this post.

At work we often see a lot of people and organisations re-tweet, write or in some way help to promote our policy engagement projects, but the numbers are rarely proportionate to the number of responses we receive or, if I’m honest, meaningful engagement. In the time it takes people to help promote a project, they could have contributed directly themselves, which would probably be more beneficial all round.

Maybe these are unfair comparisons to draw, but the fact remains in both cases that, on the face of it, people are interested in a cause, but in reality many (including me) do little beyond that. This is in spite of the fact that in both these examples there are usually pretty easy ways to get involved.

I could sponsor a Parkinson’s project in a few mouse clicks, which I think would deliver some tangible, or I could add weight to a road safety petition online by signing something and sharing a link.

Likewise, we offer up easy ways for people to comment on projects online, through several social media channels, a good ‘ol email address, or a more detailed response form.

The hard truth I am arriving at is, even when you know you are personally affected, or motivated by something, you still need multiple and well timed nudges to actually do anything about it. Simply claiming a cause or interest is a long, long way from getting involved.

This post highlights the importance of motivators: people or secondary, independent, messages, to ensure we complete a task. But these have to appear in the right place, at the right time. And perhaps that’s where we are getting to in the work-related scenario: identifying our audiences and the channels they prefer, to communicate with them.

This is good, in as much as we know where some conversations are happening and may be able to join in. But our call to action, the way in which we really want them to respond (completing a questionnaire, sharing a view etc.) isn’t quite right.

Another equally important motivator is the promise that by doing something, you will feel good about it. This is where the language of our policy engagement might struggle. ‘have a whinge and change what the Government is doing!’ is a much more appealing sell than ‘have your say’ – about as far as we go at the moment.

Maybe I’m mixing too many different things here, but I am really interested (motivated, even) to hear from others about what they think causes the gap between feeling and action. Please make the time for a comment below.

I’ve pondered the same question myself – why is it, that for all the apparent support that people express in a charitable cause or a social movement or a political debate, for instance, there is proportionately little positive change?

That’s admittedly a much wider question but in terms of the ease with which people can click ‘like’ or ‘RT’, there is comparably less enthusiasm for actually engaging with the issue. Humans are fundamentally selfish people, so it assuages our conscience to express a modicum of support for a cause, making us feel as though as we’ve done something good, while taking away the need to properly commit to it, which requires something more of us that we’re not willing or ready to give.

I think the nudging point is a good one, constant reminders, but ones that bring the issue so close to home that it’s undeniable. The issue has to resonate emotionally as well as intellectually if the prompts are to motivate people to act in a meaningful way. To use a tired but apt phrase, it’s about hearts and minds.

That’s a good point about the nudges needing to be really close to home. Do you think there is a line to be drawn on how or whether to take advantage of breaking events, to remind people about a cause?
For example, is it appropriate for road safety charities to make appeals to people who witness or are in the vicinity of a traffic accident?

That’s an interesting ethical quandary! On the one hand, while an issue is at the forefront of the public conscience, anything related to it is obviously going to resonate. To an extent, it’s what news items (print, broadcast and online), TV programmes and advertisements already do, producing corresponding and contemporaneous content. And charities make appeals when crises affecting those they campaign for are in the headlines. Although directly asking victims or witnesses for monetary donations, I think, could be viewed as a bit crass. On the other hand, when awareness needs raising and the consequences of ignorance present a risk, then perhaps there’s an argument for that approach.

[…] Are you motivated or getting something done? | Clear messageAt work we often see a lot of people and organisations re-tweet, write or in some way help to promote our policy engagement projects, but the numbers are rarely proportionate to the number of responses we receive or, if I’m honest, meaningful engagement. In the time it takes people to help promote a project, they could have contributed directly themselves, which would probably be more beneficial all round. […]

I think there are many different reasons why we don’t get as involved as we might, and I find easy to understand why you wrote the blog post rather than sponsoring a project. Doing the post expresses your individuality, whereas the sponsorship probably seems less personal (if you don’t sponsor it someone else will plus you probably don’t feel that the fact that it is precisely you that does the sponsoring will make much of a difference to the project). Also in writing the post you know that your commitment is totally under your control – you can read the comments if you want, but if you don’t want to, no one is going to make you. By contrast, if you make even a micro-gesture of involvement, you may fear that someone will notice and contact you and say: “you clearly care about this issue and sponsored a project, so why don’t sponsor another or give up your weekend to brainstorm the next stage of the project”. Finally, and linked a bit to the first point, there is a sense of “how can I really make a difference?” and/or “there are just too many needs/issues out there, if I say yes to one, why not to the next ten (or twenty or a thousand)?”. Not sure what conclusion these points would lead to – perhaps that we shouldn’t be surprised that we (and others) so often turn a blind eye/deaf ear, but perhaps also that we need to work really hard on the meaningfulness of the engagement if we are to move beyond fairly random clickivism.